Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing N. Pararneswara Kurup (Died) And Ors. vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 23 July, 1984

Khosla Medical Institute vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr on 1 December, 2022

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in N. Parameswara v. State, AIR 1986 Mad 126 where that Court had held that after the dismissal of a writ petition with permission to the petitioner to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the plaintiff was not required to serve a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before filing that suit since the notice served in the writ petition amounted to sufficient compliance of Section 80 CPC. In this context, the Court also held, inter alia, in para 23 as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Nehru Place Hotels vs Delhi Development Authority Etc on 21 December, 1990

In support of the contention that service of the notice in the W.P. amounts to a notice as required by Section 53-B of the Act, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon N. Parameswara vs. State . In the said case a W.P. was filed seeking the same reliefs as were sought in a suit filed subsequently. The W.P. was dismissed and the petitioner was granted three months time to seek the remedy by way of suit. The plaintiff filed the suit without serving any notice u/S. 80 of the CPC. The High Court held that the suit is not bad for want of notice presumably treating the notice serviced in the writ petition as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 80 CPC. The learned counsel for the deft. has tried to distinguish this judgment by arguing that in the said case the court had given three months time for instituting the civil suit & suit was instituted accordingly whereas in the present case, no time limit was fixed by the High Court while giving liberty to the plaintiff to institute any other appropriate legal proceedings. I do not think that the judgment can be distinguished on such a fact. After a/I the purpose of giving notice u/S. 80 of the Cpc or u/S. 53-B of the Act is to enable the authorities to examine the claim of the person giving the notice so that the authorities could settle the said claim without the said person being made to institute legal proceedings. In the State Bank of Punjab vs. M/s. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd., , it was held that a statutory notice of the proposed action u/S. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code is intended to alert a State to negotiate a just settlement or at least for the courtesy to tell the potential suitor as to why the claim is being resisted.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Dcm Limited vs Dda on 29 May, 2009

In arriving at its conclusion, the Court relied upon a decision of the Madras High RFA (OS) No. 17/1995 Page 14 of 21 Court in N.Parameswara vs. State AIR 1986 Madras 126 where that Court had held that after the dismissal of a writ petition with permission to the petitioner to seek his remedy by way of a suit, the plaintiff was not required to serve a notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code before filing that suit since the notice served in the writ petition amounted to sufficient compliance of Section 80 CPC. In this context, the Court also held, inter alia, in para 23 as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 5 - S K Misra - Full Document
1